Services

Figures show that our roads are safer with speed cameras

IT’S astonishing to think that speed cameras across Oxfordshire have generated a potential £13m in fines over the past five years.

But even though the devices have been around in the Thames Valley since 1992, some drivers still haven’t caught on, because the total number of fines went up 53 per cent last year compared to 2009.

Road safety campaigners argue that the increase is due to the imposition of lower speed limits on the county’s roads.

Mark McArthur Christie says motorists should be able to “drive to the speed that feels right to them and safe for them on a particular road”.

But the accident statistics show that drivers are better off with speed cameras around, even if they don’t like having to pay the fines.

Eighteen people died when the cameras were switched off in a bid to save money in 2010. This compared to 12 deaths over the same period the year before; the first increase in fatalities in four years.

Lots of drivers hate speed cameras, particularly as it is hard to tell which ones are currently operational. But it is hard to argue against them if the head of roads policing is saying they are being used in locations where there are real safety risks.

Speed kills and it’s a natural reaction for drivers to drop their speed when they see a speed camera looming in the distance. Yes, drivers might start to accelerate a few hundred yards down the road, but you could argue that by then the camera has done it’s job.

Drivers who get caught out by the same speed camera twice will be fuming, but they need to learn from their mistakes.

Comments

Oflife
9:23am Mon 28 Apr 14

Entirely disagree. Using a difference of 6 deaths is a dubious statistic. The problem with the cameras is that the speed limits themselves are inconsistent from one area of the city or one village or town to another, so drivers have no clue what speed they should be doing, in particular if the 20mph signs are tiny. Further, if you are driving down a hill, then you'll naturally speed up. Attempting to break on a hill (in particular in a wet or frozen road) is very dangerous, so you'll trigger a camera without intent.

It is reprehensible that this newspaper highlights the revenue from the cameras as if it is a positive thing. Councils claim they don't fit the cameras to make money, yet your article appears to gloat or imply that drivers are still going to fast.

These cameras are there to entrap and generate money, period.

I have had the pleasure of visiting another town with NO speed cameras or unrealistic speed limits. They have chicanes on the road to force people to slow down without the use of any invasive technology. Guess what? Most people drive well, the police are out chasing criminals not motorists, so there is less crime, driving is less stressful and the town looks nice because it isn't flooded with speed limit signs or yellow boxes.

With the exception of the parks and pubs, Oxford is the most dishonest city I have ever lived in (UK or USA), projecting a liberal righteous politic whilst fleecing hard working decent people and treating criminals with kid gloves, so they come back and break the law again.

If Oxford wants to become a more honest city, it needs to remove ALL the cameras, return the speed limit to 30 (except outside schools), build chicanes on the side streets (putting flowers in them pretties them up) and send the police out on foot to capture the thieves who steal 2500 bicycles a year from Oxford.

Don't kid yourselves guys! Be honest.

Entirely disagree. Using a difference of 6 deaths is a dubious statistic. The problem with the cameras is that the speed limits themselves are inconsistent from one area of the city or one village or town to another, so drivers have no clue what speed they should be doing, in particular if the 20mph signs are tiny. Further, if you are driving down a hill, then you'll naturally speed up. Attempting to break on a hill (in particular in a wet or frozen road) is very dangerous, so you'll trigger a camera without intent.
It is reprehensible that this newspaper highlights the revenue from the cameras as if it is a positive thing. Councils claim they don't fit the cameras to make money, yet your article appears to gloat or imply that drivers are still going to fast.
These cameras are there to entrap and generate money, period.
I have had the pleasure of visiting another town with NO speed cameras or unrealistic speed limits. They have chicanes on the road to force people to slow down without the use of any invasive technology. Guess what? Most people drive well, the police are out chasing criminals not motorists, so there is less crime, driving is less stressful and the town looks nice because it isn't flooded with speed limit signs or yellow boxes.
With the exception of the parks and pubs, Oxford is the most dishonest city I have ever lived in (UK or USA), projecting a liberal righteous politic whilst fleecing hard working decent people and treating criminals with kid gloves, so they come back and break the law again.
If Oxford wants to become a more honest city, it needs to remove ALL the cameras, return the speed limit to 30 (except outside schools), build chicanes on the side streets (putting flowers in them pretties them up) and send the police out on foot to capture the thieves who steal 2500 bicycles a year from Oxford.
Don't kid yourselves guys! Be honest.Oflife

Entirely disagree. Using a difference of 6 deaths is a dubious statistic. The problem with the cameras is that the speed limits themselves are inconsistent from one area of the city or one village or town to another, so drivers have no clue what speed they should be doing, in particular if the 20mph signs are tiny. Further, if you are driving down a hill, then you'll naturally speed up. Attempting to break on a hill (in particular in a wet or frozen road) is very dangerous, so you'll trigger a camera without intent.

It is reprehensible that this newspaper highlights the revenue from the cameras as if it is a positive thing. Councils claim they don't fit the cameras to make money, yet your article appears to gloat or imply that drivers are still going to fast.

These cameras are there to entrap and generate money, period.

I have had the pleasure of visiting another town with NO speed cameras or unrealistic speed limits. They have chicanes on the road to force people to slow down without the use of any invasive technology. Guess what? Most people drive well, the police are out chasing criminals not motorists, so there is less crime, driving is less stressful and the town looks nice because it isn't flooded with speed limit signs or yellow boxes.

With the exception of the parks and pubs, Oxford is the most dishonest city I have ever lived in (UK or USA), projecting a liberal righteous politic whilst fleecing hard working decent people and treating criminals with kid gloves, so they come back and break the law again.

If Oxford wants to become a more honest city, it needs to remove ALL the cameras, return the speed limit to 30 (except outside schools), build chicanes on the side streets (putting flowers in them pretties them up) and send the police out on foot to capture the thieves who steal 2500 bicycles a year from Oxford.

Don't kid yourselves guys! Be honest.

Score: 0

BigAlBiker
9:45am Mon 28 Apr 14

I can see where the "stat" people come from, but when i am poodling down St Giles on my Motorbike at 20mph it is more then annoying to be overtaken by a bunch of lycra clad cyclists, the rules are there for all of us.

The advent of modern day vehicles means we are better aware to brake, mirrors are better, little or no blind spots but the limits were created years ago, they should now take into account all these new safety features we have nowadays.

Touch wood, i have a clean licence.

I can see where the "stat" people come from, but when i am poodling down St Giles on my Motorbike at 20mph it is more then annoying to be overtaken by a bunch of lycra clad cyclists, the rules are there for all of us.
The advent of modern day vehicles means we are better aware to brake, mirrors are better, little or no blind spots but the limits were created years ago, they should now take into account all these new safety features we have nowadays.
Touch wood, i have a clean licence.BigAlBiker

I can see where the "stat" people come from, but when i am poodling down St Giles on my Motorbike at 20mph it is more then annoying to be overtaken by a bunch of lycra clad cyclists, the rules are there for all of us.

The advent of modern day vehicles means we are better aware to brake, mirrors are better, little or no blind spots but the limits were created years ago, they should now take into account all these new safety features we have nowadays.

Touch wood, i have a clean licence.

Score: -4

Floflo
10:59am Mon 28 Apr 14

BigAlBiker wrote…

I can see where the "stat" people come from, but when i am poodling down St Giles on my Motorbike at 20mph it is more then annoying to be overtaken by a bunch of lycra clad cyclists, the rules are there for all of us.

The advent of modern day vehicles means we are better aware to brake, mirrors are better, little or no blind spots but the limits were created years ago, they should now take into account all these new safety features we have nowadays.

Touch wood, i have a clean licence.

I don't doubt that on the rare occasion a cyclist will overtake you. However my experience of driving to the speed limits is that I'm much more likely to be overtaken by a leather bound biker, or a motorist.

Be honest now, do cyclists overtake more frequently than other road users? Why single out lycra clad cyclists for being more annoying? Is it because you wish you could wear lycra over leather? Surely as a biker you should understand that you wear clothing that's suitable to the activity.

And yes, vehicles have become safer, particularly for the occupants, but the ability of the person in control remains unchanged.

[quote][p][bold]BigAlBiker[/bold] wrote:
I can see where the "stat" people come from, but when i am poodling down St Giles on my Motorbike at 20mph it is more then annoying to be overtaken by a bunch of lycra clad cyclists, the rules are there for all of us.
The advent of modern day vehicles means we are better aware to brake, mirrors are better, little or no blind spots but the limits were created years ago, they should now take into account all these new safety features we have nowadays.
Touch wood, i have a clean licence.[/p][/quote]I don't doubt that on the rare occasion a cyclist will overtake you. However my experience of driving to the speed limits is that I'm much more likely to be overtaken by a leather bound biker, or a motorist.
Be honest now, do cyclists overtake more frequently than other road users? Why single out lycra clad cyclists for being more annoying? Is it because you wish you could wear lycra over leather? Surely as a biker you should understand that you wear clothing that's suitable to the activity.
And yes, vehicles have become safer, particularly for the occupants, but the ability of the person in control remains unchanged.Floflo

BigAlBiker wrote…

I can see where the "stat" people come from, but when i am poodling down St Giles on my Motorbike at 20mph it is more then annoying to be overtaken by a bunch of lycra clad cyclists, the rules are there for all of us.

The advent of modern day vehicles means we are better aware to brake, mirrors are better, little or no blind spots but the limits were created years ago, they should now take into account all these new safety features we have nowadays.

Touch wood, i have a clean licence.

I don't doubt that on the rare occasion a cyclist will overtake you. However my experience of driving to the speed limits is that I'm much more likely to be overtaken by a leather bound biker, or a motorist.

Be honest now, do cyclists overtake more frequently than other road users? Why single out lycra clad cyclists for being more annoying? Is it because you wish you could wear lycra over leather? Surely as a biker you should understand that you wear clothing that's suitable to the activity.

And yes, vehicles have become safer, particularly for the occupants, but the ability of the person in control remains unchanged.

Score: 9

King Joke
12:11pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Vehicles are vastly safer for the occupants, but not much changed in terms of the damage they do to vulnerable users outside the vehicle.

Big Al's assertion that visibility is better is laughable. I wonder if he has driven a modern car? If you look over your right shoulder you will see nothing - the high waistline, bootline and tree-trunk B-pillar ensure that. A-pillars are no better, containing as they do an air bag. A cyclist more than 10 m away from you can be completely obscured by one, as can Big Al on his motorbike.

My Mk I Fiesta back in the day was like a greenhouse in comparison, full 360-degree visibility, and much easier to drive around town for that reason.

Vehicles are vastly safer for the occupants, but not much changed in terms of the damage they do to vulnerable users outside the vehicle.
Big Al's assertion that visibility is better is laughable. I wonder if he has driven a modern car? If you look over your right shoulder you will see nothing - the high waistline, bootline and tree-trunk B-pillar ensure that. A-pillars are no better, containing as they do an air bag. A cyclist more than 10 m away from you can be completely obscured by one, as can Big Al on his motorbike.
My Mk I Fiesta back in the day was like a greenhouse in comparison, full 360-degree visibility, and much easier to drive around town for that reason.King Joke

Vehicles are vastly safer for the occupants, but not much changed in terms of the damage they do to vulnerable users outside the vehicle.

Big Al's assertion that visibility is better is laughable. I wonder if he has driven a modern car? If you look over your right shoulder you will see nothing - the high waistline, bootline and tree-trunk B-pillar ensure that. A-pillars are no better, containing as they do an air bag. A cyclist more than 10 m away from you can be completely obscured by one, as can Big Al on his motorbike.

My Mk I Fiesta back in the day was like a greenhouse in comparison, full 360-degree visibility, and much easier to drive around town for that reason.

Score: 2

Whitto
12:15pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Lets not turn this into yet another vehicles versus cyclist arguement.

Essentially speed limits in built up areas should be 20 or 30 MPH to take into account the increased population in the modern world, whilst on dual carriagways and motorways increased to 80 or 85 MPH to take into account modern vehicles and increased braking capabilities and other safety features. Hopefully this would give a balance...

Lets not turn this into yet another vehicles versus cyclist arguement.
Essentially speed limits in built up areas should be 20 or 30 MPH to take into account the increased population in the modern world, whilst on dual carriagways and motorways increased to 80 or 85 MPH to take into account modern vehicles and increased braking capabilities and other safety features. Hopefully this would give a balance...Whitto

Lets not turn this into yet another vehicles versus cyclist arguement.

Essentially speed limits in built up areas should be 20 or 30 MPH to take into account the increased population in the modern world, whilst on dual carriagways and motorways increased to 80 or 85 MPH to take into account modern vehicles and increased braking capabilities and other safety features. Hopefully this would give a balance...

Score: 3

Andrew:Oxford
1:04pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Oflife wrote…

Entirely disagree. Using a difference of 6 deaths is a dubious statistic. The problem with the cameras is that the speed limits themselves are inconsistent from one area of the city or one village or town to another, so drivers have no clue what speed they should be doing, in particular if the 20mph signs are tiny. Further, if you are driving down a hill, then you'll naturally speed up. Attempting to break on a hill (in particular in a wet or frozen road) is very dangerous, so you'll trigger a camera without intent.

It is reprehensible that this newspaper highlights the revenue from the cameras as if it is a positive thing. Councils claim they don't fit the cameras to make money, yet your article appears to gloat or imply that drivers are still going to fast.

These cameras are there to entrap and generate money, period.

I have had the pleasure of visiting another town with NO speed cameras or unrealistic speed limits. They have chicanes on the road to force people to slow down without the use of any invasive technology. Guess what? Most people drive well, the police are out chasing criminals not motorists, so there is less crime, driving is less stressful and the town looks nice because it isn't flooded with speed limit signs or yellow boxes.

With the exception of the parks and pubs, Oxford is the most dishonest city I have ever lived in (UK or USA), projecting a liberal righteous politic whilst fleecing hard working decent people and treating criminals with kid gloves, so they come back and break the law again.

If Oxford wants to become a more honest city, it needs to remove ALL the cameras, return the speed limit to 30 (except outside schools), build chicanes on the side streets (putting flowers in them pretties them up) and send the police out on foot to capture the thieves who steal 2500 bicycles a year from Oxford.

Don't kid yourselves guys! Be honest.

Get some average speed cameras up and everyone will stick to the relevant speed limit.

For 20mph downhill. I've never driven an automatic, but as a manual driver, I select an appropriate gear and use that in combination with my brakes to keep to the limit.

Chicanes are only good in fair weather and on roads that are both well lit and have a high priority for winter snow and ice clearance. They also require a high-performance maintenance regime to ensure that the lines remain clear on wet roads.

[quote][p][bold]Oflife[/bold] wrote:
Entirely disagree. Using a difference of 6 deaths is a dubious statistic. The problem with the cameras is that the speed limits themselves are inconsistent from one area of the city or one village or town to another, so drivers have no clue what speed they should be doing, in particular if the 20mph signs are tiny. Further, if you are driving down a hill, then you'll naturally speed up. Attempting to break on a hill (in particular in a wet or frozen road) is very dangerous, so you'll trigger a camera without intent.
It is reprehensible that this newspaper highlights the revenue from the cameras as if it is a positive thing. Councils claim they don't fit the cameras to make money, yet your article appears to gloat or imply that drivers are still going to fast.
These cameras are there to entrap and generate money, period.
I have had the pleasure of visiting another town with NO speed cameras or unrealistic speed limits. They have chicanes on the road to force people to slow down without the use of any invasive technology. Guess what? Most people drive well, the police are out chasing criminals not motorists, so there is less crime, driving is less stressful and the town looks nice because it isn't flooded with speed limit signs or yellow boxes.
With the exception of the parks and pubs, Oxford is the most dishonest city I have ever lived in (UK or USA), projecting a liberal righteous politic whilst fleecing hard working decent people and treating criminals with kid gloves, so they come back and break the law again.
If Oxford wants to become a more honest city, it needs to remove ALL the cameras, return the speed limit to 30 (except outside schools), build chicanes on the side streets (putting flowers in them pretties them up) and send the police out on foot to capture the thieves who steal 2500 bicycles a year from Oxford.
Don't kid yourselves guys! Be honest.[/p][/quote]Get some average speed cameras up and everyone will stick to the relevant speed limit.
For 20mph downhill. I've never driven an automatic, but as a manual driver, I select an appropriate gear and use that in combination with my brakes to keep to the limit.
Chicanes are only good in fair weather and on roads that are both well lit and have a high priority for winter snow and ice clearance. They also require a high-performance maintenance regime to ensure that the lines remain clear on wet roads.Andrew:Oxford

Oflife wrote…

Entirely disagree. Using a difference of 6 deaths is a dubious statistic. The problem with the cameras is that the speed limits themselves are inconsistent from one area of the city or one village or town to another, so drivers have no clue what speed they should be doing, in particular if the 20mph signs are tiny. Further, if you are driving down a hill, then you'll naturally speed up. Attempting to break on a hill (in particular in a wet or frozen road) is very dangerous, so you'll trigger a camera without intent.

It is reprehensible that this newspaper highlights the revenue from the cameras as if it is a positive thing. Councils claim they don't fit the cameras to make money, yet your article appears to gloat or imply that drivers are still going to fast.

These cameras are there to entrap and generate money, period.

I have had the pleasure of visiting another town with NO speed cameras or unrealistic speed limits. They have chicanes on the road to force people to slow down without the use of any invasive technology. Guess what? Most people drive well, the police are out chasing criminals not motorists, so there is less crime, driving is less stressful and the town looks nice because it isn't flooded with speed limit signs or yellow boxes.

With the exception of the parks and pubs, Oxford is the most dishonest city I have ever lived in (UK or USA), projecting a liberal righteous politic whilst fleecing hard working decent people and treating criminals with kid gloves, so they come back and break the law again.

If Oxford wants to become a more honest city, it needs to remove ALL the cameras, return the speed limit to 30 (except outside schools), build chicanes on the side streets (putting flowers in them pretties them up) and send the police out on foot to capture the thieves who steal 2500 bicycles a year from Oxford.

Don't kid yourselves guys! Be honest.

Get some average speed cameras up and everyone will stick to the relevant speed limit.

For 20mph downhill. I've never driven an automatic, but as a manual driver, I select an appropriate gear and use that in combination with my brakes to keep to the limit.

Chicanes are only good in fair weather and on roads that are both well lit and have a high priority for winter snow and ice clearance. They also require a high-performance maintenance regime to ensure that the lines remain clear on wet roads.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here